Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
3d 440
BACKGROUND
2
An alien seeking lawful temporary status as a SAW must file an application and
supporting documents with an INS Legalization Office ("LO"). The INS issues
a temporary employment authorization to the applicant pending a determination
on the SAW application. The applicant then is interviewed by an INS examiner
at the appropriate LO. The application must establish, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the applicant performed the requisite ninety days of
qualifying seasonal agricultural services. To meet this burden the applicant
must present evidence of eligibility independent of his or her own testimony,
such as an employer's payroll records or affidavits by agricultural producers,
foremen, farm labor contractors, union officials, fellow employees, or other
persons with specific knowledge of the applicant's employment.
At the conclusion of the review of the application materials the INS examiner
makes an initial recommendation to the Regional Processing Facility ("RPF").
If the examiner recommends approval and the RPF concurs in this
determination, the RPF notifies the applicant of the approval. If the examiner
recommends denial of the application and the RPF agrees, however, the RPF
sends to the applicant a notice of intent to deny. The applicant then is given an
opportunity to submit to the RPF any further evidence to rebut that
determination. If the RPF does not overrule the denial, the applicant is notified
of the denial and of his or her right to appeal the determination to the
Legalization Appeals Unit ("LAU"), which is authorized to make the final
administrative decision in each case. Although the LAU bases its review upon
the administrative record developed at the time of the initial decision on the
application, the applicant may submit for the LAU's consideration any
additional or newly discovered evidence that was not available at the time of
the initial determination by the INS examiner. If the LAU determines that the
denial decision was correctly made, it then issues a final order of denial. If,
however, the LAU determines that the denial was incorrect, it remands the
matter to the RPF for further hearings.
4
INS regulations preclude applicants from filing before the LAU motions to
reopen a previous proceeding or to reconsider a previous decision. See 8 C.F.R.
Secs. 103.5(b), 210.2(g) (1993).1 The appellants assert that these regulations
are an impermissible interpretation of section 1160(e) of IRCA because they
limit the introduction of evidence of eligibility and hence limit the scope of
appellate review of a denial of eligibility.2
The district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over the
consolidated complaints on the ground that IRCA's limitation on judicial
review does not preclude review of a challenge to the procedures used by the
INS in implementing the statute. See McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc., 498
U.S. 479, 491-94, 111 S.Ct. 888, 895-97, 112 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1991). This
determination is not challenged on appeal. The district court then rejected
appellants' claim that the regulations were arbitrary and capricious. This appeal
followed.
DISCUSSION
6
The appellants assert that Congress intended to give SAW applicants every
opportunity to establish eligibility, and claim that the opportunity to file
motions to reopen is consistent with that intent. Although IRCA is silent
regarding motions to reopen, the language of the Act is consonant with
regulations precluding such motions. Section 1160(e)(2)(A) provides only "for
a single level of administrative appellate review" of a determination on a SAW
application. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1160(e)(2)(A) (1993). Pursuant to this requirement,
Congress explicitly directed the Attorney General to establish the LAU to hear
administrative appeals of denials of SAW applications. See id. IRCA also
forecloses judicial review of a final order by the LAU absent an order of
exclusion or deportation. See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1160(e)(3)(A); see also McNary,
498 U.S. at 491-94, 111 S.Ct. at 895-97. Further, IRCA directs that, when
undertaken, judicial review must be based solely upon "the administrative
record established at the time of the review by the appellate authority." 8
U.S.C. Sec. 1160(e)(3)(B) (1993). Finally, the factual findings and the
determination contained in the record are "conclusive" unless the applicant can
demonstrate either an abuse of discretion or a determination "directly contrary
to clear and convincing facts contained in the record considered as a whole." Id.
The appellants also claim that regulations permitting the INS to determine their
eligibility without considering all the evidence violates their due process rights.
This claim is without merit, however, as the record indicates that the appellants
possessed three opportunities to submit evidence to establish their eligibility--to
the LO, the RPF and the LAU. The appellants were given a full and fair
opportunity to establish their eligibility and thus were not denied their due
process rights. See Bothyo v. Moyer, 772 F.2d 353, 358 (7th Cir.1985).
Accordingly, relief based on this claim also is unavailable.
CONCLUSION
10
For the reasons stated above, the district court's order dismissing the appellants'
consolidated complaints is affirmed.
Honorable T.F. Gilroy Daly of the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut, sitting by designation
part.
8
IRCA does not preclude the INS from reopening proceedings sua sponte. See 8
C.F.R. Secs. 103.5(b), 210.2(g)